SMAC gets 98% in PC Gamer
Colin
though, and Firaxis is being just as quick to release patches as Microprose
was when Civ2 came out... Both games had there flaws, Civ2 was far from
perfect (bug wise) when it was released, just as SMAC is far from perfect in
its current state (though its pretty damned close if ya ask me).
Later, Colin
Andrew R. Gillett wrote in message ...
>In comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.strategic, SnowFire wrote:
>> Highest score ever. Civ2 got a 97%, Half Life got a 97%, WarCraft II and
a
>> whole bunch of other games got a 96%, but this is the first 98%.
>>
>> The issue next month will have a large strategy guide, as well, straight
>> from Firaxis.
>>
>> http://biz.yahoo.com/bw/990225/ca_electro_1.html
>
>In PC Gamer UK, Civ 2 got 96%, Half-Life got 96% (the only other game to
>get that was Quake II), and SMAC got 91%. 98% is just ridiculous, SMAC is
>nowhere near as good as Civ II was at the time, and it has many flaws
>(bugs, for a start).
>
>--
>Andrew Gillett http://argnet.fatal-design.com/ ICQ: See homepage
>"Sir, sure am, sir." - Chelmer Monkton, Starship Losers
Will Moeller
way too many bugs in the first release. SMAC has a lot less bugs. I haven't run
into any really noticable bug in SMAC actually.
Will Moeller
The Alpha Centauri Nexus
http://sidgames.com/ac
Will Moeller
Will Moeller
The Alpha Centauri Nexus
http://sidgames.com/ac
!Anthony Q! wrote:
> Well after seeing last months PC GAmer give Falcon 4 such a high rating an then
> say barely anything about its bugs, I decided to scrap my subscription. They are
> WAY off on most of their reviews and any game from a big-time advertiser seems
> to get much better treatment than the small non-advertsing group. Even CGW made
> a big deal about Falcon 4's bugs and it only got 3.5 stars. For me they seem
> like the better mag now.
>
> Colin wrote:
>
> > I seem to recall having to download numerous Civ2 patches because of bugs
> > though, and Firaxis is being just as quick to release patches as Microprose
> > was when Civ2 came out... Both games had there flaws, Civ2 was far from
> > perfect (bug wise) when it was released, just as SMAC is far from perfect in
> > its current state (though its pretty damned close if ya ask me).
> >
> > Later, Colin
> >
> > Andrew R. Gillett wrote in message ...
> > >In comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.strategic, SnowFire wrote:
> > >> Highest score ever. Civ2 got a 97%, Half Life got a 97%, WarCraft II and
> > a
> > >> whole bunch of other games got a 96%, but this is the first 98%.
> > >>
> > >> The issue next month will have a large strategy guide, as well, straight
> > >> from Firaxis.
> > >>
> > >> http://biz.yahoo.com/bw/990225/ca_electro_1.html
> > >
> > >In PC Gamer UK, Civ 2 got 96%, Half-Life got 96% (the only other game to
> > >get that was Quake II), and SMAC got 91%. 98% is just ridiculous, SMAC is
> > >nowhere near as good as Civ II was at the time, and it has many flaws
> > >(bugs, for a start).
> > >
> > >--
> > >Andrew Gillett http://argnet.fatal-design.com/ ICQ: See homepage
> > >"Sir, sure am, sir." - Chelmer Monkton, Starship Losers
>
> --
> Later,
>
> Anthony
> Bea...@hotmail.com
SnowFire
whole bunch of other games got a 96%, but this is the first 98%.
The issue next month will have a large strategy guide, as well, straight
from Firaxis.
http://biz.yahoo.com/bw/990225/ca_electro_1.html
--
-SnowFire
Webmaster of The Mindworm, Chiron's First Strategy & Tactics Magazine
http://www.sidgames.com/ac/mindworm but that server is down.
Mike
no way that AC is better than Civ2, Civ2 is the greatest turn based strategy
game EVER made... I can't believe they rated it higher than civ2.
--
Mike
Please remove the .NOSPAM from my email address when replying
check out - www.msu.edu/~tansymic
SnowFire wrote in message <01be62b7$a1c48260$c4dd...@worldnet.att.net>...
Andrew R. Gillett
> Highest score ever. Civ2 got a 97%, Half Life got a 97%, WarCraft II and a
> whole bunch of other games got a 96%, but this is the first 98%.
>
> The issue next month will have a large strategy guide, as well, straight
> from Firaxis.
>
> http://biz.yahoo.com/bw/990225/ca_electro_1.html
In PC Gamer UK, Civ 2 got 96%, Half-Life got 96% (the only other game to
Tor Iver Wilhelmsen
> I read the review... no offense, but I think it is total hog shit. There is
> no way that AC is better than Civ2, Civ2 is the greatest turn based strategy
> game EVER made... I can't believe they rated it higher than civ2.
SMAC doesn't have CivII's routing problems - there's a percentage
point alone. And the interface is far better, with build queues etc.
Krud
>Well after seeing last months PC GAmer give Falcon 4 such a high rating an
then
>say barely anything about its bugs, I decided to scrap my subscription.
They are
>WAY off on most of their reviews and any game from a big-time advertiser
seems
>to get much better treatment than the small non-advertsing group. Even CGW
made
>a big deal about Falcon 4's bugs and it only got 3.5 stars. For me they
seem
>like the better mag now.
Don't you all realize that PC Gamer is a game company magazine? They don't
write reviews for gamers, they write them for game companies. I bet the
person who wrote the review played a final beta for a few hours then
submitted their review. They probably didn't play it long enough to know
that there are bugs. It wouldn't be the first time. I always get a laugh
when they review a game that has a game-stopping bug, but they don't mention
it in the review.
But that's not the point. PC Gamer isn't in business to write quality
reviews, they're in business to make money and if rushing through a review
gets it out in print faster than the competition then that's what they'll
do. Stick Dan Bennett in a closet with a computer and a half dozen cheese
steak subs and tell him to write a review by tomorrow. Dan the man will get
the job done!
-Krud
Mike
opinion. Not even close. I can't wait for CTP...
--
Mike
Please remove the .NOSPAM from my email address when replying
check out - www.msu.edu/~tansymic
Tor Iver Wilhelmsen wrote in message ...
Andrew R. Gillett
> Don't you all realize that PC Gamer is a game company magazine? They don't
> write reviews for gamers, they write them for game companies. I bet the
> person who wrote the review played a final beta for a few hours then
> submitted their review. They probably didn't play it long enough to know
> that there are bugs. It wouldn't be the first time. I always get a laugh
> when they review a game that has a game-stopping bug, but they don't mention
> it in the review.
>
> But that's not the point. PC Gamer isn't in business to write quality
> reviews, they're in business to make money and if rushing through a review
> gets it out in print faster than the competition then that's what they'll
> do. Stick Dan Bennett in a closet with a computer and a half dozen cheese
> steak subs and tell him to write a review by tomorrow. Dan the man will get
> the job done!
Whoa, sounds like PC Gamer US and UK are a world apart, PC Gamer UK pride
themselves on writing decent reviews and not sucking up to publishers.
--
Andrew Gillett http://argnet.fatal-design.com/ ICQ: See homepage
"Old man? Would you like a bourbon biscuit? ANSWER ME!" - Simon Quinlank
!Anthony Q!
believe they are not as prone to this as PC Gamer. Falcon got 3.5 stars, which
is about right. They also state that it has the potential to be a 5 star game
which is also correct.
Krud wrote:
> !Anthony Q! wrote in message <36D8D59A...@hotmail.com>...
> >Well after seeing last months PC GAmer give Falcon 4 such a high rating an
> then
> >say barely anything about its bugs, I decided to scrap my subscription.
> They are
> >WAY off on most of their reviews and any game from a big-time advertiser
> seems
> >to get much better treatment than the small non-advertsing group. Even CGW
> made
> >a big deal about Falcon 4's bugs and it only got 3.5 stars. For me they
> seem
> >like the better mag now.
>
> Don't you all realize that PC Gamer is a game company magazine? They don't
> write reviews for gamers, they write them for game companies. I bet the
> person who wrote the review played a final beta for a few hours then
> submitted their review. They probably didn't play it long enough to know
> that there are bugs. It wouldn't be the first time. I always get a laugh
> when they review a game that has a game-stopping bug, but they don't mention
> it in the review.
>
> But that's not the point. PC Gamer isn't in business to write quality
> reviews, they're in business to make money and if rushing through a review
> gets it out in print faster than the competition then that's what they'll
> do. Stick Dan Bennett in a closet with a computer and a half dozen cheese
> steak subs and tell him to write a review by tomorrow. Dan the man will get
> the job done!
>
> -Krud
--
Later,
Anthony
Bea...@hotmail.com
SnowFire
<36D8F641...@hotmail.com>...
> I didnt say that they gave all unknowns/smaller companies bad reviews, I
was trying to
> convey that they RARELY if EVER give a bad review to the BIG companies,
while they
> have no problem slamming the smaller fish for bad games.
That just isn't true. I can give you many hyped games from big companies
that PC Gamer has absolutely panned, from Sierra, Microsoft, Microprose,
Electronic Arts, all the big companies. Should I get out my back copies
and read them off?
> Will Moeller wrote:
>
> > They gave I-War a great review and it was from a pretty much unknow
company....
> >
> > Will Moeller
> > The Alpha Centauri Nexus
> > http://sidgames.com/ac
> >
> > !Anthony Q! wrote:
> >
> > > Well after seeing last months PC GAmer give Falcon 4 such a high
rating an then
> > > say barely anything about its bugs, I decided to scrap my
subscription. They are
> > > WAY off on most of their reviews and any game from a big-time
advertiser seems
> > > to get much better treatment than the small non-advertsing group.
Even CGW made
> > > a big deal about Falcon 4's bugs and it only got 3.5 stars. For me
they seem
> > > like the better mag now.
> > >
> > > Colin wrote:
> > >
> > > > I seem to recall having to download numerous Civ2 patches because
of bugs
> > > > though, and Firaxis is being just as quick to release patches as
Microprose
> > > > was when Civ2 came out... Both games had there flaws, Civ2 was far
from
> > > > perfect (bug wise) when it was released, just as SMAC is far from
perfect in
> > > > its current state (though its pretty damned close if ya ask me).
> > > >
> > > > Later, Colin
> > > >
> > > > Andrew R. Gillett wrote in message ...
> > > > >In comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.strategic, SnowFire wrote:
> > > > >> Highest score ever. Civ2 got a 97%, Half Life got a 97%,
WarCraft II and
> > > > a
> > > > >> whole bunch of other games got a 96%, but this is the first 98%.
> > > > >>
> > > > >> The issue next month will have a large strategy guide, as well,
straight
> > > > >> from Firaxis.
> > > > >>
> > > > >> http://biz.yahoo.com/bw/990225/ca_electro_1.html
> > > > >
> > > > >In PC Gamer UK, Civ 2 got 96%, Half-Life got 96% (the only other
game to
> > > > >get that was Quake II), and SMAC got 91%. 98% is just ridiculous,
SMAC is
> > > > >nowhere near as good as Civ II was at the time, and it has many
flaws
> > > > >(bugs, for a start).
> > > > >
> > > > >--
> > > > >Andrew Gillett http://argnet.fatal-design.com/ ICQ: See
homepage
> > > > >"Sir, sure am, sir." - Chelmer Monkton, Starship Losers
> > >
> > > --
> > > Later,
> > >
> > > Anthony
> > > Bea...@hotmail.com
>
> --
> Later,
>
> Anthony
> Bea...@hotmail.com
>
>
>
Will Moeller
Andrew R. Gillett wrote:
> In alt.games.firaxis.alpha-centauri, Krud wrote:
> > Don't you all realize that PC Gamer is a game company magazine? They don't
> > write reviews for gamers, they write them for game companies. I bet the
> > person who wrote the review played a final beta for a few hours then
> > submitted their review. They probably didn't play it long enough to know
> > that there are bugs. It wouldn't be the first time. I always get a laugh
> > when they review a game that has a game-stopping bug, but they don't mention
> > it in the review.
> >
> > But that's not the point. PC Gamer isn't in business to write quality
> > reviews, they're in business to make money and if rushing through a review
> > gets it out in print faster than the competition then that's what they'll
> > do. Stick Dan Bennett in a closet with a computer and a half dozen cheese
> > steak subs and tell him to write a review by tomorrow. Dan the man will get
> > the job done!
>
> Whoa, sounds like PC Gamer US and UK are a world apart, PC Gamer UK pride
> themselves on writing decent reviews and not sucking up to publishers.
>
PCGamer UK isn't really different from the US. UK just writes reivews more pro to
UK made games.
Andrew R. Gillett
> PCGamer UK isn't really different from the US. UK just writes reivews more pro to
> UK made games.
Examples?
(every game that I can remember that got 95/96% was made in the US)
--
Andrew Gillett http://argnet.fatal-design.com/ ICQ: See homepage
AcK!
<tans...@pilot.msu.edu.NOSPAM>'s $2000 typewriter and wrote:
>You are right, but AC just isn't as fun, nor nearly as addictive, in my
>opinion. Not even close. I can't wait for CTP...
Probably because (it sounds like) you've soundly defeated it. Gotta get alphahq.net
set up soon, eh? :)
TTYL
... Backup not found: (A)bort (R)etry (S)lap nearest innocent bystander.
krup...@yahoospa.com
remove "spa" to email
AcK!
<au...@mindspring.com>'s $2000 typewriter and wrote:
>Don't you all realize that PC Gamer is a game company magazine? They don't
>write reviews for gamers, they write them for game companies. I bet the
>person who wrote the review played a final beta for a few hours then
>submitted their review. They probably didn't play it long enough to know
PC Gamer UK will write a review based on a beta copy of a game. US PC Gamer doesn't
write reviews based on betas. That's why we're still waiting for the review to get
published (in print, of course)...
>that there are bugs. It wouldn't be the first time. I always get a laugh
>when they review a game that has a game-stopping bug, but they don't mention
>it in the review.
They usually mention the bugs.
>do. Stick Dan Bennett in a closet with a computer and a half dozen cheese
>steak subs and tell him to write a review by tomorrow. Dan the man will get
>the job done!
I could do that. ;)
TTYL
... Anger not a moderator, thou would make a silly trophy on the wall.
AcK!
a...@whangomatic.freeserve.co.uk (Andrew R. Gillett)'s $2000 typewriter and wrote:
>Whoa, sounds like PC Gamer US and UK are a world apart, PC Gamer UK pride
>themselves on writing decent reviews and not sucking up to publishers.
They're unrelated, except in name.
TTYL
... Another triumph for truth, justice, and automatic weapons!
Mike
fun. The graphics just aren't good (seems like they use a dozen colors). The
music and sound blow. The AI is horrible. It just doesn't get my imagination
going like civ2. After a week of AC, I returned it. After playing literally
(i know this is sad) millions of hours of civ2 for years, it is without a
doubt one of the greatest computer games ever made. AC isn't a terrible
game, but is sure as hell isn't better than Civ2... the guys over at PC
Gamer must be smoking something.
--
Mike
Please remove the .NOSPAM from my email address when replying
check out - www.msu.edu/~tansymic
AcK! wrote in message <36d9d1a0...@news.interlog.com>...
Prowler
snowball...@worldnet.att.net says...
> > convey that they RARELY if EVER give a bad review to the BIG companies,
> > while they have no problem slamming the smaller fish for bad games.
>
> That just isn't true. I can give you many hyped games from big companies
> that PC Gamer has absolutely panned, from Sierra, Microsoft, Microprose,
> Electronic Arts, all the big companies. Should I get out my back copies
> and read them off?
>
Please do. I for one stopped bothering with PClamer
after the Ass-end-ancy fiasco. It was that coupled with
their amazing record of every single game advertised on a
front cover fold out in their magazine getting editors
choice (or whatever it is). Then of course there was the
phenomenal average rating of 88% they had back
then....which they corrected after public outcry by
slamming older games hard (reviewing games that had been
out for 6-10 months and giving them 15-60% while still
reviewing "big name" games within a few weeks of their
release.
AcK!
<wav...@hotmail.com>'s $2000 typewriter and wrote:
>I have to agree. I havn't come across one bug. Sure, the formers AI could be
>better. But thats all. I never liked civ2 more then civ1. SMAC rocks 'em
>all.
Never liked civ2 more? You'd go back to civ1 and play it after having played civ2?
That was my test as to whether or not the new game had succeeded over the old one. A
year or two of civ2 later, I loaded up civ1. Yuck. Exited quickly.
I'll see my reaction to civ2 after playing a few months of SMAC....
TTYL
... Ever get the feeling your guardian angel is laughing?
!Anthony Q!
Dennis Francis Heffernan
wrote:
|Do you remember Civ2? The only thing most reviews said about it was that it had
|way too many bugs in the first release. SMAC has a lot less bugs. I haven't run
|into any really noticable bug in SMAC actually.
EHHH?? Do games you can't win count?
Dennis F. Heffernan UO: Venture (Catskills) dfra...@email.com
Montclair State U #include <disclaim.h> ICQ:9154048 CompSci/Philosophy
"And I say now these kittens, they do not get trained/As we did in the days
when Victoria reigned." -- T. S. Eliot, "Gus, the Theatre Cat"
Dale Hight
<snowball...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>Highest score ever. Civ2 got a 97%, Half Life got a 97%, WarCraft II and a
>whole bunch of other games got a 96%, but this is the first 98%.
>
I think PG Gamer has got it wrong (again). I would rate AC less than
Civ2. I think because AC is so much like Civ2. To me, (it's not
really innovative, but instead more of an engine update with different
names for the same things and some added things. But, all in all the
same basic game system...
Dale
!Anthony Q!
have no problem slamming the smaller fish for bad games.
Will Moeller wrote:
> They gave I-War a great review and it was from a pretty much unknow company....
>
> Will Moeller
> The Alpha Centauri Nexus
> http://sidgames.com/ac
>
> !Anthony Q! wrote:
>
> > Well after seeing last months PC GAmer give Falcon 4 such a high rating an then
> > say barely anything about its bugs, I decided to scrap my subscription. They are
> > WAY off on most of their reviews and any game from a big-time advertiser seems
> > to get much better treatment than the small non-advertsing group. Even CGW made
> > a big deal about Falcon 4's bugs and it only got 3.5 stars. For me they seem
> > like the better mag now.
> >
> > Colin wrote:
> >
> > > I seem to recall having to download numerous Civ2 patches because of bugs
> > > though, and Firaxis is being just as quick to release patches as Microprose
> > > was when Civ2 came out... Both games had there flaws, Civ2 was far from
> > > perfect (bug wise) when it was released, just as SMAC is far from perfect in
> > > its current state (though its pretty damned close if ya ask me).
> > >
> > > Later, Colin
> > >
> > > Andrew R. Gillett wrote in message ...
> > > >In comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.strategic, SnowFire wrote:
> > > >> Highest score ever. Civ2 got a 97%, Half Life got a 97%, WarCraft II and
> > > a
> > > >> whole bunch of other games got a 96%, but this is the first 98%.
> > > >>
> > > >> The issue next month will have a large strategy guide, as well, straight
> > > >> from Firaxis.
> > > >>
> > > >> http://biz.yahoo.com/bw/990225/ca_electro_1.html
> > > >
> > > >In PC Gamer UK, Civ 2 got 96%, Half-Life got 96% (the only other game to
> > > >get that was Quake II), and SMAC got 91%. 98% is just ridiculous, SMAC is
> > > >nowhere near as good as Civ II was at the time, and it has many flaws
> > > >(bugs, for a start).
> > > >
> > > >--
> > > >Andrew Gillett http://argnet.fatal-design.com/ ICQ: See homepage
> > > >"Sir, sure am, sir." - Chelmer Monkton, Starship Losers
> >
> > --
> > Later,
> >
> > Anthony
> > Bea...@hotmail.com
--
Later,
Anthony
Bea...@hotmail.com
Waver
better. But thats all. I never liked civ2 more then civ1. SMAC rocks 'em
all.
wavver
Trevor Farrell
SnowFire <snowball...@worldnet.att.net> writes
>Highest score ever. Civ2 got a 97%, Half Life got a 97%, WarCraft II and a
>whole bunch of other games got a 96%, but this is the first 98%.
The UK version gives it 91% in a comparison with CTP which got 92%.
Presumably the latter was a pre release version, perhaps they both were!
Trevor
>
>The issue next month will have a large strategy guide, as well, straight
>from Firaxis.
>
>http://biz.yahoo.com/bw/990225/ca_electro_1.html
>
Trevor Farrell
Trevor Farrell
Andrew R. Gillett <a...@whangomatic.freeserve.co.uk> writes
>In alt.games.firaxis.alpha-centauri, Krud wrote:
>> Don't you all realize that PC Gamer is a game company magazine? They don't
>> write reviews for gamers, they write them for game companies. I bet the
>> person who wrote the review played a final beta for a few hours then
>> submitted their review. They probably didn't play it long enough to know
>> when they review a game that has a game-stopping bug, but they don't mention
>> it in the review.
>>
>> reviews, they're in business to make money and if rushing through a review
>> gets it out in print faster than the competition then that's what they'll
>> steak subs and tell him to write a review by tomorrow. Dan the man will get
>> the job done!
>
>themselves on writing decent reviews and not sucking up to publishers.
>
Well IMO it wasn't always like that but it does seem to have improved.
The Falcon 4 review was odd though but I guess the reviews aren't done
to any depth.
Trevor
Trevor Farrell
Richard Gregory
> I think PG Gamer has got it wrong (again). I would rate AC less than
> Civ2. I think because AC is so much like Civ2. To me, (it's not
> really innovative, but instead more of an engine update with different
> names for the same things and some added things. But, all in all the
> same basic game system...
>
> Dale
I'd have to agree. What spoils it for me is that SMAC has allowed
gloss to overcome substance: I've played games like CIVII or, even
better, Master of Orion 2, for ages: unless you're very lucky in
the start conditions these games will give even the experienced
player a run for their money and getting a high CIVII percentage
is still an achievement. With SMAC you have to play really, REALLY
dumb to stand a chance of losing. I won the very first game I played
in a day. Not a challenge. It's great if you want to spend ages
dicking about with unit designs and such, but the AI players
are very non-agressive. Maybe multi-player is better.
spaceboy
>
> In alt.games.firaxis.alpha-centauri, Will Moeller wrote:
> > PCGamer UK isn't really different from the US. UK just writes reivews more pro to
> > UK made games.
>
> Examples?
>
> (every game that I can remember that got 95/96% was made in the US)
>
The rather average Dungeon Keeper got 94% or 95%. They also foam at the
mouth in an undignified manner over every DID flight sim.
On the other hand, while they may overrate from time to time, but they
do usually manage to slag off the real rubbish.
spaceboy
SnowFire
article <MPG.11439ea47ff3ddce989740@news-server>...
companies,
> > > while they have no problem slamming the smaller fish for bad games.
> >
companies
> > that PC Gamer has absolutely panned, from Sierra, Microsoft,
Microprose,
> > Electronic Arts, all the big companies. Should I get out my back
copies
> > and read them off?
> >
>
> Please do. I for one stopped bothering with PClamer
> after the Ass-end-ancy fiasco. It was that coupled with
> their amazing record of every single game advertised on a
> front cover fold out in their magazine getting editors
> choice (or whatever it is). Then of course there was the
> phenomenal average rating of 88% they had back
> then....which they corrected after public outcry by
> slamming older games hard (reviewing games that had been
> out for 6-10 months and giving them 15-60% while still
> reviewing "big name" games within a few weeks of their
> release.
>
Yup, they gave Outpost (the original) a 90% or something too, back in the
old days. But I didn't subscribe to the magazine back then, and they've
got a fully new staff for now and have had one for some time. Looking back
at some indexs of games, and some hyped games that got poor reviews:
The X-Files, the Game- 35% CGW gave that one 3 stars, despite no substance.
Riven- 40% Of course. Somehow, CGW was reasonably amenable to that one.
Tomb Raider III- 49% Absolutely nothing new to series. And they ran
articles on this as well.
C&C Sole Survivor 35% Totally panned it as no fun.
Ultima Online- 55% Lag, bugs, and PK'ing.
Dominion: Storm over Gift 3- 55% Not surprisingly.
Starship Titanic- 64% They were very disappointed, and they did a cover
story on that as well.
Star Wars: Rebellion- 60% A tremendous disappointment to all, and they said
it in their review.
M.A.X. 2- 40% Over the bugs, naturally.
Battlecruiser 3000 AD- 15% Same as above: bugs galore.
Red Baron II- 59%, Again, bugs.
Magic: The Gathering - Battlemage (something in the 30's) They had a
feature story that had a section on this as well.
G- Police 68% Panned it for good graphics, no substance while CGW gave it 5
stars
Police Quest: SWAT 2- 55% Impossible to control, unrealistic.
Frogger 32% Yes, this counts. That was definitely hyped, and I think CGW
gave it 3.5 stars.
Armored Fist 2- 34% Not surprisingly, but they had a cover story covering
parts of that.
Streets of SimCity- 37% Hated the driving model. Put out by big publisher
and famous developer.
Tom Clancy's Politika- 40% Boring boardgame.
Battlespire 58% - Didn't like this one either.
Journeyman Project 3- 75% Yeah, maybe not a pan, but CGW gave it an
incredible 5 stars, totally unrealistic.
That's what I could remember as well as what I found looking in the index
for last year. Satisfied?
Andrew R. Gillett
> Andrew R. Gillett wrote:
> >
> > In alt.games.firaxis.alpha-centauri, Will Moeller wrote:
> > > PCGamer UK isn't really different from the US. UK just writes reivews more pro to
> > > UK made games.
> >
> > Examples?
> >
> > (every game that I can remember that got 95/96% was made in the US)
>
> The rather average Dungeon Keeper got 94% or 95%. They also foam at the
> mouth in an undignified manner over every DID flight sim.
Dungeon Keeper was an excellent game and was a big hit over here.
--
Andrew Gillett http://argnet.fatal-design.com/ ICQ: See homepage
Chris Byler
Hight) wrote:
>On 28 Feb 1999 01:15:15 GMT, "SnowFire"
><snowball...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>>Highest score ever. Civ2 got a 97%, Half Life got a 97%, WarCraft II and a
>>whole bunch of other games got a 96%, but this is the first 98%.
>I think PG Gamer has got it wrong (again). I would rate AC less than
>Civ2. I think because AC is so much like Civ2. To me, (it's not
>really innovative, but instead more of an engine update with different
>names for the same things and some added things. But, all in all the
>same basic game system...
Maybe (although I think you're wrong, there are several things that
change the game _a lot_, most notably the design workshop and the new
diplomacy model).
But even if it is "Civ 3", that doesn't change the fact that
everything Civ 2 does, AC does just as well or better. It is a better
game.
I don't have anything against evolutionary development of game
systems; I'll take AC over "revolutionary" Ascendancy any day. In
fact, I think that games that break new ground usually have a lot of
rough spots and are not as good as their successors that do "the same
thing" only better.
--
Chris Byler cby...@vt.edu
"I'm not a speed reader. I'm a speed understander."
-- Isaac Asimov
JSpectre07
>
Ugh... must... take... exception... Dungeon Keeper wasn't much of a "game". It
was BEAUTIFUL, and amusing for a while, but there was really nothing to do
besides draw squares and drop your 8 toughest critters on whatever was foolish
enough to step up to the plate... hopefully, DK2 will fix that.
Pat
When I am king you will be first against the wall
With your opinion which is of no consequence at all.
Thierry Nguyen
<snowball...@worldnet.att.net> approached him in the old
spaghetti factory. Zubanski then makes the dubious claim of being
handed a letter containing the following text:
>Journeyman Project 3- 75% Yeah, maybe not a pan, but CGW gave it an
>incredible 5 stars, totally unrealistic.
You're probably thinking of either Journeyman 2 or S+. CGW gave
Journeyman 3 3.5 stars.
--
Thierry Nguyen
"Isn't sanity just a one trick pony anyway? I mean, with sanity, you only
get one trick--rational thought. But when you're good and crazy, the sky's
the limit!" -The Tick
John Park
92%.
Andrew R. Gillett wrote in message ...
>In comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.strategic, SnowFire wrote:
>> Highest score ever. Civ2 got a 97%, Half Life got a 97%, WarCraft II and
a
>> whole bunch of other games got a 96%, but this is the first 98%.
>>
>> The issue next month will have a large strategy guide, as well, straight
>> from Firaxis.
>>
>> http://biz.yahoo.com/bw/990225/ca_electro_1.html
>
>In PC Gamer UK, Civ 2 got 96%, Half-Life got 96% (the only other game to
>get that was Quake II), and SMAC got 91%. 98% is just ridiculous, SMAC is
>nowhere near as good as Civ II was at the time, and it has many flaws
>(bugs, for a start).
>
>--
>Andrew Gillett http://argnet.fatal-design.com/ ICQ: See homepage
David Adrien Tanguay
> SMAC doesn't have CivII's routing problems - there's a percentage
> point alone.
I've seen the goto bug in SMAC. It doesn't seem as common, but it's
still there.
--
David Tanguay d...@Thinkage.on.ca http://www.thinkage.on.ca/~dat/
Thinkage, Ltd. Kitchener, Ontario, Canada [43.24N 80.29W]
Krud
>
>But even if it is "Civ 3", that doesn't change the fact that
>everything Civ 2 does, AC does just as well or better. It is a better
>game.
PC Gamer probably didn't have time to play the game so they figured if they
gave Civ 2 a 97, AC is probably better so they'll give it a 98.
I can picture it now............ an overworked, underpaid PCG writer gets to
work Monday morning and sees a copy (probably a gold version) of Alpha
Centauri sitting on his desk. He thinks, "damn, I don't have time to play
this! I've got important things to do today. It's 9:30 and I haven't even
decided what to get for lunch. What the hell does that prick Gary Whitta
want from me, for God's sake!" So he looks at the box and remembers how
good Civ 2 was and realizes that AC was made by the same people. He
figures, it can't be any worse, so he'll give it a 98 and probably get away
with it.
-Krud
Joe Schlimgen
<tans...@pilot.msu.edu.NOSPAM> wrote:
> After playing literally (i know this is sad) millions of hours of civ2 for years
_Literally_ millions of hours? Let's see, 1M hours is 114+ years and
you've played _millions_ (plural). IIRC, Civ2 hasn't been out that
long. :)
Mike
Been playing it (nearly) non stop since it was released.
--
Mike
Please remove the .NOSPAM from my email address when replying
check out - www.msu.edu/~tansymic
Joe Schlimgen wrote in message <36da9736....@news.xmission.com>...
ric...@wargamer.com
"Mike" <tans...@pilot.msu.edu.NOSPAM> wrote:
> I have defeated it... but that isn't my biggest compliant. AC just isn't
> fun. The graphics just aren't good (seems like they use a dozen colors). The
> music and sound blow. The AI is horrible. It just doesn't get my imagination
> going like civ2. After a week of AC, I returned it. After playing literally
> (i know this is sad) millions of hours of civ2 for years, it is without a
> doubt one of the greatest computer games ever made. AC isn't a terrible
> game, but is sure as hell isn't better than Civ2... the guys over at PC
> Gamer must be smoking something.
The graphics fit the time period in question.
The music and sound are very mood oriented. They are certaintly better than
the sing songy music of Civ 2. I liked Civ 2 but this is a major leap
forward.
The AI seriously kicks butt. What level did you play at? The AI does a
great job using diplomacy and the tools of this game against you. I think no
one should ever base their opinion of a game like this on one game. I have
found that sometimes the other civs have bad startup conditions and just
never recover. And the AI does an excellent job of remembering treaties and
forming lasting relationships where the original Civ2 failed. More than once
I have had an ally come to my aid in my time of need without asking.
The steps forward in SMAC are incredible. I kind of compare it to a whole lot
of Civ with a little MOO and MOO2 thrown in for good measure.
>
> --
>
> Mike
>
> Please remove the .NOSPAM from my email address when replying
>
> check out - www.msu.edu/~tansymic
>
> AcK! wrote in message <36d9d1a0...@news.interlog.com>...
> >Sun, 28 Feb 1999 15:37:56 GMT was when a million monkeys took over "Mike"
> ><tans...@pilot.msu.edu.NOSPAM>'s $2000 typewriter and wrote:
> >
> >>You are right, but AC just isn't as fun, nor nearly as addictive, in my
> >>opinion. Not even close. I can't wait for CTP...
> >
> >Probably because (it sounds like) you've soundly defeated it. Gotta get
> alphahq.net
> >set up soon, eh? :)
> >
> >TTYL
> >
> >... Backup not found: (A)bort (R)etry (S)lap nearest innocent bystander.
> > krup...@yahoospa.com
> > remove "spa" to email
>
>
Richard D. Arnesen Jr.
Director, Media Relations and New Market Development
http://www.wargamer.com
-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own
ric...@wargamer.com
ric...@wargamer.com
ric...@wargamer.com
ric...@wargamer.com
Henri H. Arsenault
<tans...@pilot.msu.edu.NOSPAM> wrote:
> I read the review... no offense, but I think it is total hog shit. There is
> no way that AC is better than Civ2, Civ2 is the greatest turn based strategy
> game EVER made... I can't believe they rated it higher than civ2.
>
For its time, yes, but Civ CHEATED!
Henri
Neil Fradkin
>Civ2. I think because AC is so much like Civ2. To me, (it's not
>really innovative, but instead more of an engine update with different
>names for the same things and some added things. But, all in all the
>same basic game system...
By your logic Civ1 should have gotten the highest rating of the three.
At least AC has one hell of a lot more additions and changes than civ2 did
from civ. (civ2 was an very minor engine update with the name names and a
small amount of added things)
Neil Fradkin
>gave Civ 2 a 97, AC is probably better so they'll give it a 98.
I don't understand why it's so hard to believe that people might
actually think AC is better than Civ2. IMHO, AC is much better than Civ2. It
removed Civ2's primary flaw, the game bogging down with micromanagment to
the point where it's not at all fun to play.
D. Bingham Brown
AcK! wrote in message <36d9d1f7...@news.interlog.com>...
>>do. Stick Dan Bennett in a closet with a computer and a half dozen cheese
>>steak subs and tell him to write a review by tomorrow. Dan the man will
get
>>the job done!
>
Man, I'd do it for two cheesesteaks...
D. Bingham Brown
(far too many cheesesteaks already)
CaptComal
and don't have it. What is the ISSUE MONTH? What Page? I looked at
their online site and did not see it there either. What am I missing?
Best Regards,
CaptComal
SnowFire wrote:
>
> Highest score ever. Civ2 got a 97%, Half Life got a 97%, WarCraft II and a
> whole bunch of other games got a 96%, but this is the first 98%.
>
> The issue next month will have a large strategy guide, as well, straight
> from Firaxis.
>
> http://biz.yahoo.com/bw/990225/ca_electro_1.html
>
> --
> -SnowFire
> Webmaster of The Mindworm, Chiron's First Strategy & Tactics Magazine
> http://www.sidgames.com/ac/mindworm but that server is down.
Mike
>The AI seriously kicks butt. What level did you play at?
3rd hardest, 2nd hardest and the very hardest. I played about 4 or 5 games
Mike
--
Mike
Please remove the .NOSPAM from my email address when replying
check out - www.msu.edu/~tansymic
Henri H. Arsenault wrote in message ...
idleeric
Neil Fradkin wrote in message ...
"Micromanagement": TBS:: "Mouseclicking":RTS
"bogged down"? ... nope .... depends what gives you a buzz ... the
meglomania of controlling 150+ cities on every corner of the Earth by 1950
after centuries of struggle did it for me ... isn't there a bit of Lenin in
all of us?
but then the curveball ... Pollution.
Isn't there a bit of Al Gore is all of us??
* * * * * * * *
"It's not money, it's not politics --- it's who controls the pussy that
controls the world."
_ Larry Flynt, "What I've Learned", ESQUIRE, 1-6-99
James Dusek
snowball...@worldnet.att.net says...
> Highest score ever. Civ2 got a 97%, Half Life got a 97%, WarCraft II and a
> whole bunch of other games got a 96%, but this is the first 98%.
A 98%, thats WAY to high. I'd give it a 78%, the game isn't that
fun and the AI isn't that good.
> The issue next month will have a large strategy guide, as well, straight
> from Firaxis.
>
A bribe?
James Dusek
Jon Nunn
CaptComal <CaptCom...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> Where is this PC GAMER issue that everyone is talking about. I subscribe
> and don't have it. What is the ISSUE MONTH?
April 99, which is probably why you don't have it yet.
>What Page? I looked at
> their online site and did not see it there either. What am I missing?
>
I went to March 99 on their web site, hit next and got a list of what their
reviews are going to be in April with a note that they'll be avaiable as soon
as the April edition hits the stores. (In case your wondering, the online
version of their reviews just have the rating, bigest strength, bigest
weakness, and bottom line.)
> SnowFire wrote:
> >
> > Highest score ever. Civ2 got a 97%, Half Life got a 97%, WarCraft II and a
> > whole bunch of other games got a 96%, but this is the first 98%.
> >
> > The issue next month will have a large strategy guide, as well, straight
> > from Firaxis.
> >
> > http://biz.yahoo.com/bw/990225/ca_electro_1.html
> >
> > --
> > -SnowFire
> > Webmaster of The Mindworm, Chiron's First Strategy & Tactics Magazine
> > http://www.sidgames.com/ac/mindworm but that server is down.
>
Jon Nunn
Programmer Analyst
Friends Don't Let Friends Do Cobol
http://www.mc.vanderbilt.edu/users/nunnacl/personal.html
JSpectre07
>all of us?
No.
>Isn't there a bit of Al Gore is all of us??
Dear GOD no.
Kevin B. O'Brien
said (on Mon, 1 Mar 1999 12:00:21 -0500):
>Isn't there a bit of Al Gore is all of us??
I'm not certain there is any Al Gore in Al Gore.
--
Kevin B. O'Brien TANSTAAFL
ko...@ix.netcom.com
"There are no significant bugs in our released software that any significant
number of users want fixed." Bill Gates, 1995 interview, Focus Magazine (Germany)
Help fight SPAM. Join CAUCE. http://www.cauce.org/
mike...@my-dejanews.com
cby...@REMOVE-TO-REPLY.vt.edu (Chris Byler) wrote:
> I don't have anything against evolutionary development of game
> systems; I'll take AC over "revolutionary" Ascendancy any day. In
> fact, I think that games that break new ground usually have a lot of
> rough spots and are not as good as their successors that do "the same
> thing" only better.
Ascendancy was a REALLY bad game, but primarily because there was WAY to much
micromanagement and the computer AI was incredibly BAD.
It's too bad that all game designers gave up on all that was good about
Ascendancy. There hasn't been a really good space strategy game since MOO1.
(MOO2 was not as good as MOO1)
mike...@my-dejanews.com
ric...@wargamer.com wrote:
> The AI seriously kicks butt
I haven't played the game enough to comment on the AI.
The AI in Civ2 was better than Civ1. The AI in Civ1 cheated massively.
Initially the AI in Civ2 seemed REAL good at first, but after playing for a
while, I figured out how to beat the AI.
I presume it will be the same with SMAC. These games are kind of like
puzzles. The goal is to figure out how to beat the AI. Once you've figured
out how to beat it, the game becomes a lot less fun. Then you buy a new game.
The question is, how long have you played with SMAC? Because after playing
with these games a real long time, eventually you figure out how to beat the
AI every time.
Jim Leonard
Krud <au...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>Don't you all realize that PC Gamer is a game company magazine? They don't
>write reviews for gamers, they write them for game companies. I bet the
>person who wrote the review played a final beta for a few hours then
>submitted their review. They probably didn't play it long enough to know
>that there are bugs. It wouldn't be the first time. I always get a laugh
>when they review a game that has a game-stopping bug, but they don't mention
>it in the review.
This is precisely one of the reasons my friend and I created
MobyGames. I got sick and tired of inaccurate reviews written by
magazine employees trying not to piss off big advertising accounts.
<blatant advertisement>
Take a look at http://www.mobygames.com/ as it might have the features
you're looking for in a review site. All reviews are user-contributed;
all ratings are relevant (ie you don't rate an Infocom text-adventure
on it's "graphics" and "sound", etc.). Everything is hyper-linked.
</blatant advertisement>
(Standard disclaimer: we *just now* opened up mobygames last night, so
there's only about 30 games in there. This will increase as we add the
ability for users to 1. create entries in the database via a web-based
form, and 2. give users the ability to create and maintain their own
software lists, for incentive :-)
--
Jim Leonard; UNIX SysAdmin at PLATINUM technology; jim.l...@platinum.com
Jonathan Dalton
What a load of crap. PC Gamer is beginning to turn into a "let's give it
100% and call it the best game ever made" console magazine (FFVII, anyone?).
No matter how good the game, I don't think it should ever be awarded above
05%, since there will always be faults with it, and people that don't like
bits of it. PCF is a perfect example of this ( I like that mag :) )
jon
SnowFire
<deruber...@pleasedonthurtmeIhavebeanies.zombieworld.com> wrote in
article <36db30e5...@news.mindspring.com>...
> According to Zubanski, it was 1 Mar 1999 01:46:39 GMT when "SnowFire"
> <snowball...@worldnet.att.net> approached him in the old
> spaghetti factory. Zubanski then makes the dubious claim of being
> handed a letter containing the following text:
>
> >Journeyman Project 3- 75% Yeah, maybe not a pan, but CGW gave it an
> >incredible 5 stars, totally unrealistic.
>
> You're probably thinking of either Journeyman 2 or S+. CGW gave
> Journeyman 3 3.5 stars.
I stand corrected. However, I still think that the other panned, hyped
games shows that the conspiracy theories advocated by the others aren't
right.
Winte...@tictac.org
wrote:
>In article <01be62b7$a1c48260$c4dd...@worldnet.att.net>,
>snowball...@worldnet.att.net says...
>> Highest score ever. Civ2 got a 97%, Half Life got a 97%, WarCraft II and a
>> whole bunch of other games got a 96%, but this is the first 98%.
>
> A 98%, thats WAY to high. I'd give it a 78%, the game isn't that
>fun and the AI isn't that good.
Maybe 94-95%. Much better than 78%.
Krud
>>PC Gamer probably didn't have time to play the game so they figured if
they
>>gave Civ 2 a 97, AC is probably better so they'll give it a 98.
>
> I don't understand why it's so hard to believe that people might
>actually think AC is better than Civ2. IMHO, AC is much better than Civ2.
It
>removed Civ2's primary flaw, the game bogging down with micromanagment to
>the point where it's not at all fun to play.
I didn't mean that AC is not better than Civ 2, I was just pointing out how
PC Gamer does their reviews.
Civ 2 was a 97 and the same people made AC but they fixed all the mistakes
they made with Civ 2. So it's got to be at least a 98. Why bother playing
it? It's a no brainer.
-Krud
Will Moeller
even though SMAC is much more complexed than most TBS games.
Will Moeller
The Alpha Centauri Nexus
http://sidgames.com/ac
Freddy Poobah
Vince Leamons
says...
> >PC Gamer probably didn't have time to play the game so they figured if they
> >gave Civ 2 a 97, AC is probably better so they'll give it a 98.
>
>
> I don't understand why it's so hard to believe that people might
> actually think AC is better than Civ2. IMHO, AC is much better than Civ2. It
> removed Civ2's primary flaw, the game bogging down with micromanagment to
> the point where it's not at all fun to play.
>
>
>
different reasons:
1) It has workable multiplayer. That alone is good for the extra point.
2) IT ALLOWS JOINT FACTION VICTORY! I can't overstate the value of this
feature. In Civ2, all alliances must eventually end, or one power is just
giving a victory to another. In SMAC, two players can actually share a
victory! What other empire-building game allows that?
I've played a LOT of Civ2. Hell, I still play once in a while. But there
is also no question in my mind which game's AI is better. I got *spanked*
playing SMAC on Transcend the first time I tried it, and the AI still
beats me up quite often - Civ2 was relatively easy to beat by comparison,
and the real challenge became how much you could beat your opponents by,
how long it took you to win, etc.
8') Vince
L'Empereur
> > >Journeyman Project 3- 75% Yeah, maybe not a pan, but CGW gave it an
> > >incredible 5 stars, totally unrealistic.
> >
> > You're probably thinking of either Journeyman 2 or S+. CGW gave
> > Journeyman 3 3.5 stars.
>
> I stand corrected. However, I still think that the other panned, hyped
> games shows that the conspiracy theories advocated by the others aren't
> right.
>
I just also noted an interesting fact.. CGW gave SMAC a 5.0, but SMAC was
almosl
never advertized in it; not as much as PCgamer by a long shot. ( Now I
haven't bought EVERY
CGW but for the most part SMAC ads were not present but CTP a;wsy had
massive foldouts?
heh maybe the 98% is a message.. SEND US YOUR ADS!
:) :)
Nappy
AcK!
<tans...@pilot.msu.edu.NOSPAM>'s $2000 typewriter and wrote:
>I have defeated it... but that isn't my biggest compliant. AC just isn't
>fun. The graphics just aren't good (seems like they use a dozen colors). The
dozen -> not enough, or too many colours?
>music and sound blow. The AI is horrible. It just doesn't get my imagination
civ2 music was ok, but once I got past the old days the music just didn't feel right
any more. I'd end up popping in other CD's to listen to the music then, as I might
end up doing now. Did you play with all 7 factions? They have different music...
>going like civ2. After a week of AC, I returned it. After playing literally
>(i know this is sad) millions of hours of civ2 for years, it is without a
>doubt one of the greatest computer games ever made. AC isn't a terrible
>game, but is sure as hell isn't better than Civ2... the guys over at PC
>Gamer must be smoking something.
Probably all the KFC.
TTYL
... A penny saved is nothing in the real world!
Mike
--
Mike
Please remove the .NOSPAM from my email address when replying
check out - www.msu.edu/~tansymic
AcK! wrote in message <36db4772...@news.interlog.com>...
>Sun, 28 Feb 1999 23:46:13 GMT was when a million monkeys took over "Mike"
><tans...@pilot.msu.edu.NOSPAM>'s $2000 typewriter and wrote:
>
>>I have defeated it... but that isn't my biggest compliant. AC just isn't
>>fun. The graphics just aren't good (seems like they use a dozen colors).
The
>
>dozen -> not enough, or too many colours?
what do you think? WAY too few... (or it least looks that way to me)
AcK!
So why aren't we calling it PC Lamer? I loved that fake-title. ;)
J Nova
D. Bingham Brown wrote in message ...
J Nova
thing like bugs into account. They gave Falcon 4.0 a sub-90 rating but said
it could be MUCh better if not for bugs whereas sister mag PC Gamer went
Falcon ballistic.
Jonathan Dalton wrote in message <7betk8$ruv$1...@newnews.global.net.uk>...
>
>What a load of crap. PC Gamer is beginning to turn into a "let's give it
>100% and call it the best game ever made" console magazine (FFVII,
anyone?).
>No matter how good the game, I don't think it should ever be awarded above
>05%, since there will always be faults with it, and people that don't like
>bits of it. PCF is a perfect example of this ( I like that mag :) )
>
>
>
Krud
J Nova wrote in message <7bgg32$g71$3...@plutonium.btinternet.com>...
>yes UK PC Format is very well balnace. They do not go overboard and take
>thing like bugs into account. They gave Falcon 4.0 a sub-90 rating but said
>it could be MUCh better if not for bugs whereas sister mag PC Gamer went
>Falcon ballistic.
That's the problem with reviewing betas. If they mention a bug that doesn't
make it into the final retail version they will look foolish, so they never
mention bugs. PCG US isn't quite that bad but I still don't trust their
reviews. There have been numerous times over the years when I've been sure
that the writer of a review did not actually finish the game.
Warning signs of a rushed review:
1) All the screenshots are from the beginning of the game.
2) There is detail about the beginning of the game but very little detail
about the end.
3) Fatal game-stopping bugs that show up near the end of the game are not
mentioned. The most recent example I remember is Soldiers at War. But I
rarely read PCG now so I'm sure there are more recent examples that I
haven't seen.
4) The review centers around the graphics and technology instead of the
gameplay.
5) The review is in PC Gamer.
-Krud
ric...@wargamer.com
tends to have a different slant on things. Plsu the AI, for once, uses
diplomacy to decent affect, especially compared to Civ2's "Give me tech or
you die" approach.
In article <7bev8j$5ou$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>,
Richard D. Arnesen Jr.
Director, Media Relations and New Market Development
http://www.wargamer.com
-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
ric...@wargamer.com
The problem is once you find a game you get hooked to (and it is fresh in your
mind) you tend to forget whether this other game was really better than it or
not. Since it is addictive, and in oyur mind right now, you want to give it a
higher grade than the game you reviewed before.
Plus all of this is subjective. One person might give a game a 3.5 (but
really lvoe it) because he wants to be fair, while another person would give
it a 5.0 because they love it the same amount but don't mind hyping it.
Keep it Simple. Just comment on each part of the game and then tell whether
you like it or not. If it is truly great give it high praises. But skip
ratings, they don't mean a freaking thing.
In article <7betk8$ruv$1...@newnews.global.net.uk>,
"Jonathan Dalton" <jo...@globalnet.co.uk> wrote:
>
> What a load of crap. PC Gamer is beginning to turn into a "let's give it
> 100% and call it the best game ever made" console magazine (FFVII, anyone?).
> No matter how good the game, I don't think it should ever be awarded above
> 05%, since there will always be faults with it, and people that don't like
> bits of it. PCF is a perfect example of this ( I like that mag :) )
>
> jon
>
>
Richard D. Arnesen Jr.
joelm...@geocities.com
ric...@wargamer.com wrote:
> This is EXACTLY why we don't give out ratings and I oppose them very much.
>
> The problem is once you find a game you get hooked to (and it is fresh in your
> mind) you tend to forget whether this other game was really better than it or
> not. Since it is addictive, and in oyur mind right now, you want to give it a
> higher grade than the game you reviewed before.
My biggest problem with ratings is that no one ever sticks to them. If
you work it out, on PC Gamer's scale 50% should be an average game with
half the games falling below that mark and half being above it. This
does not happen. Even by their own scale (last time I checked it though
was several years back) only a handful of games get rated less than average.
Look at web sites that use a 1 to 10 rating; an average game gets a 6-8
instead of 4-6.
Joel Mathis
James Dusek
says...
> Ummm...the AI for SMAC is way better than any TBS game currently on the market,
> even though SMAC is much more complexed than most TBS games.
Have you EVER seen the AI snatch victory from the Jaws of defeat?
I just watched the belivers get rolled over by the hive, they didn't
putup any resistance. Your saying this is way better than any TBS games
out there? How hard is it to change production to defensive units? How
brilliant do you have to be to realise your being over-run and one should
change city producton to units?
I think the MOO 2 AI would be a little better than this one.
James Dusek
Ben & Karen
Joe Schlimgen wrote:
> On Sun, 28 Feb 1999 23:46:13 GMT, "Mike"
> <tans...@pilot.msu.edu.NOSPAM> wrote:
>
> > After playing literally (i know this is sad) millions of hours of civ2 for years
>
> _Literally_ millions of hours? Let's see, 1M hours is 114+ years and
> you've played _millions_ (plural). IIRC, Civ2 hasn't been out that
> long. :)
He could be playing multiple games simultaneously, on seperate computers... ;)
-Ben
Andrew R. Gillett
> Warning signs of a rushed review:
>
> 1) All the screenshots are from the beginning of the game.
Many of PC Gamer UK's reviews use the same screenshots which were used
two months ago in the preview. The same screenshots are sometimes later
used in the review in Edge (sister magazine of Next Generation), which is
quite worrying. Edge's review of X-COM: Interceptor had a screenshot of a
craft with nothing on the HUD, firing at an X-COM base. The caption said
something along the lines of "here is a craft firing at an alien base".
--
Andrew Gillett http://argnet.fatal-design.com/ ICQ: See homepage
"Saint Valentine - the patron saint of making sad and lonely single people
feel like shit." - Stewart Lee
Jonathan Dalton
>05%,
oops...should be 95%, not 05% :)
jon
SnowFire
<vrQC2.2404$_J5....@news.rdc1.md.home.com>...
>
> J Nova wrote in message <7bgg32$g71$3...@plutonium.btinternet.com>...
> >yes UK PC Format is very well balnace. They do not go overboard and take
> >thing like bugs into account. They gave Falcon 4.0 a sub-90 rating but
said
> >it could be MUCh better if not for bugs whereas sister mag PC Gamer went
> >Falcon ballistic.
>
>
> That's the problem with reviewing betas. If they mention a bug that
doesn't
> make it into the final retail version they will look foolish, so they
never
> mention bugs. PCG US isn't quite that bad but I still don't trust their
> reviews. There have been numerous times over the years when I've been
sure
> that the writer of a review did not actually finish the game.
>
>
> 1) All the screenshots are from the beginning of the game.
> about the end.
> 3) Fatal game-stopping bugs that show up near the end of the game are not
> mentioned. The most recent example I remember is Soldiers at War. But I
> rarely read PCG now so I'm sure there are more recent examples that I
> haven't seen.
> 4) The review centers around the graphics and technology instead of the
> gameplay.
> 5) The review is in PC Gamer.
>
> -Krud
Sheesh, I don't know why you have this incredible hatred of PC Gamer. I
posted over on the other thread a long list of heavily hyped games that PC
Gamer had previewed and had hyped themselves, and then gave bad reviews to.
Why can't you believe that they actually play the games and rank them?
SMAC is better than Civ2, and Civ2 was a 97%. Hence the 98%.
-SnowFire
P.S. I agree with you on your list of criteria for a rushed review, and I
have seen a few of those. But I don't usually see PCG focusing on graphics
and technology over gameplay.
Mike
--
Mike
Please remove the .NOSPAM from my email address when replying
check out - www.msu.edu/~tansymic
Ben & Karen wrote in message <36DC194A...@earthlink.net>...
Tor Iver Wilhelmsen
> Civ 2 was a 97 and the same people made AC but they fixed all the mistakes
> they made with Civ 2. So it's got to be at least a 98. Why bother playing
> it? It's a no brainer.
Yes, but the percentage-based ratings still suck eggs. What do they do
when an even better game comes out? Give it 99%? Then 100%? Then 101%?
Or do the "scale down" previous scores? And it's a percentage of
_what_, exactly?
SMAC still rules, though. :-)
Cyberspace Buddha
>found that sometimes the other civs have bad startup conditions and just
>never recover.
Oh boy, is that ever right. In my current game <huge map of planet>,
The University started on the very southern end of a large penninsula
and never made it past having one base. I had a pact with him for a
while. Nobody seems to be bothering with them though, even the
faction that has them bottled up down there. Poor guys...
cheers,
cb
--
Cyberspace Buddha /(0\ What's on, your mind?
mailto:c...@io.com \1)/ http://www.io.com/~cb
Not your fathers buddha.
Cyberspace Buddha
>I have to agree. I havn't come across one bug. Sure, the formers AI could be
>better. But thats all. I never liked civ2 more then civ1.
Yeah, the formers seemed odd to me too. I mean, my first game, as
Gaians, the formers built Boreholes and Condensers! Sure, I had the
settings such that it was possible for them to do so, but these are
Gaian formers. Surely they would have a self-imposed restriction
against auto-building anything that casues major eco-damage. Seems
like the citizens should grumble if even Diedre herself sent the
orders for such construction.
Just ideas...
Jon Nunn
Ben & Karen <feld...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
>
> Joe Schlimgen wrote:
>
> > On Sun, 28 Feb 1999 23:46:13 GMT, "Mike"
> > <tans...@pilot.msu.edu.NOSPAM> wrote:
> >
> > > After playing literally (i know this is sad) millions of hours of civ2 for
> >years
> >
> > _Literally_ millions of hours? Let's see, 1M hours is 114+ years and
> > you've played _millions_ (plural). IIRC, Civ2 hasn't been out that
> > long. :)
>
> He could be playing multiple games simultaneously, on seperate computers... ;)
>
Perhaps he meant thousands of hours, as there's only a little over 36,000
hours in 4 years.
Jon Nunn
Programmer Analyst
Friends Don't Let Friends Do Cobol
http://www.mc.vanderbilt.edu/users/nunnacl/personal.html
Tim Farrow
years old.
Mike wrote:
> I have defeated it... but that isn't my biggest compliant. AC just isn't
> fun. The graphics just aren't good (seems like they use a dozen colors). The
> music and sound blow. The AI is horrible. It just doesn't get my imagination
> going like civ2. After a week of AC, I returned it. After playing literally
> (i know this is sad) millions of hours of civ2 for years, it is without a
> doubt one of the greatest computer games ever made. AC isn't a terrible
> game, but is sure as hell isn't better than Civ2... the guys over at PC
> Gamer must be smoking something.
>
> --
>
> Mike
>
> Please remove the .NOSPAM from my email address when replying
>
> check out - www.msu.edu/~tansymic
>
> AcK! wrote in message <36d9d1a0...@news.interlog.com>...
> >Sun, 28 Feb 1999 15:37:56 GMT was when a million monkeys took over "Mike"
> ><tans...@pilot.msu.edu.NOSPAM>'s $2000 typewriter and wrote:
> >
> >>You are right, but AC just isn't as fun, nor nearly as addictive, in my
> >>opinion. Not even close. I can't wait for CTP...
> >
> >Probably because (it sounds like) you've soundly defeated it. Gotta get
> alphahq.net
> >set up soon, eh? :)
> >
> >TTYL
> >
> >... Backup not found: (A)bort (R)etry (S)lap nearest innocent bystander.
Mike
--
Mike
Please remove the .NOSPAM from my email address when replying
check out - www.msu.edu/~tansymic
Tim Farrow wrote in message <36DC7696...@earthlink.con>...
Will Moeller
James Dusek wrote:
Actually the when I was fighting the believers, they came back against me with probes
and captured most of my cities. They also changed their units to mainly defensive
until they destroyed my attacking force. Nothing like that ever happened in MoO2
when I played it.
Charles Miles
makes sense. 90 and above is an A, 80 to 90 a B, etc. Now, PC GAMER's
average ranking is a B, not a C--but then that's true of the average
college grade as well.
I actually averaged out PC GAMER ratings last year, and the "test score"
idea fits their rankings pretty well.
Charles
Sirtech Canada
joelm...@geocities.com wrote:
>
> In article <7bgu1v$rlq$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>,
> ric...@wargamer.com wrote:
> > This is EXACTLY why we don't give out ratings and I oppose them very much.
> >
> > The problem is once you find a game you get hooked to (and it is fresh in your
> > mind) you tend to forget whether this other game was really better than it or
> > not. Since it is addictive, and in oyur mind right now, you want to give it a
> > higher grade than the game you reviewed before.
>
> My biggest problem with ratings is that no one ever sticks to them. If
> you work it out, on PC Gamer's scale 50% should be an average game with
> half the games falling below that mark and half being above it. This
> does not happen. Even by their own scale (last time I checked it though
> was several years back) only a handful of games get rated less than average.
> Look at web sites that use a 1 to 10 rating; an average game gets a 6-8
> instead of 4-6.
>
> Joel Mathis
>
AcK!
<tans...@pilot.msu.edu.NOSPAM>'s $2000 typewriter and wrote:
>>>I have defeated it... but that isn't my biggest compliant. AC just isn't
>>>fun. The graphics just aren't good (seems like they use a dozen colors).
>The
>>
>>dozen -> not enough, or too many colours?
>
>
>what do you think? WAY too few... (or it least looks that way to me)
I dunno. They're growing on me. (agh! fungal bloom!)
TTYL
... What do you mean? You actually read this tagline?!?
Joe Schlimgen
<feld...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
>
>Joe Schlimgen wrote:
>
>> On Sun, 28 Feb 1999 23:46:13 GMT, "Mike"
>> <tans...@pilot.msu.edu.NOSPAM> wrote:
>>
>> > After playing literally (i know this is sad) millions of hours of civ2 for years
>>
>> _Literally_ millions of hours? Let's see, 1M hours is 114+ years and
>> you've played _millions_ (plural). IIRC, Civ2 hasn't been out that
>> long. :)
>
>He could be playing multiple games simultaneously, on seperate computers... ;)
>
>-Ben
I thought about that and did the calculations. Civ2 has been out about
2 years (~17,520 hours) and he needs at least 2 million hours. That
turns out to be 114+ simultaneous games non-stop since release. More
if he wants some meal/sleep/work(?) breaks.
Joe Schlimgen
wrote:
>If you (literally) spent millions of hours playing a game, you must be about 230
>years old.
We're having a discussion about that in another sub-thread. Since
(obviously) Civ2 hasn't been out that long, he's playing multiple
simultaneous games. So far, he's been doing 114 games non-stop since
release and still going. :) The Guiness people are monitoring closely.
At last report, his eyes are starting to droop, so it may be close to
an end. However, there are those who think his second wind is going to
kick in.
Mike
something.
Alpha Centauri, is chopped liver.
LOL
seriously...
--
Mike
Please remove the .NOSPAM from my email address when replying
check out - www.msu.edu/~tansymic
Joe Schlimgen wrote in message <36dd3a26....@news.xmission.com>...
Mike
Your support is appreciated.
I will think of you, as I destroy the enemy civ's, for the 893,456th time.
--
Mike
Please remove the .NOSPAM from my email address when replying
check out - www.msu.edu/~tansymic
Joe Schlimgen wrote in message <36de3cfb....@news.xmission.com>...
Brian Reynolds
>Presumably the latter was a pre release version, perhaps they both were!
Both were prerelease.
BR
Herring
<snowball...@worldnet.att.net> threw his vodka glass in the fire
and said:
>
>Sheesh, I don't know why you have this incredible hatred of PC Gamer. I
>posted over on the other thread a long list of heavily hyped games that PC
>Gamer had previewed and had hyped themselves, and then gave bad reviews to.
> Why can't you believe that they actually play the games and rank them?
>SMAC is better than Civ2, and Civ2 was a 97%. Hence the 98%.
>
>-SnowFire
>
Thats cool! That means that the second of Firaxis's next 2 releases
will be perfect! ;)
Remove (Nospam) to reply via email
And remember, shop smart, shop S-Mart.
Neil Fradkin
>gloss to overcome substance: I've played games like CIVII or, even
>better, Master of Orion 2, for ages: unless you're very lucky in
>the start conditions these games will give even the experienced
>player a run for their money and getting a high CIVII percentage
>is still an achievement.
What? Other than playing on deity level, Civ2 was a piece of cake, and
with MOO2, other than playing on impossible, winning was all but gaurenteed.
Even on these levels with the computer getting massive bonuses winning was
not exactly a challenge. Getting a high percentage in Civ2 is not an
achievement, it's a given.
>With SMAC you have to play really, REALLY
>dumb to stand a chance of losing. I won the very first game I played
>in a day. Not a challenge. It's great if you want to spend ages
>dicking about with unit designs and such, but the AI players
>are very non-agressive. Maybe multi-player is better.
What level was that first game on? If you are beating it regularly on
transcend level with ironman on I might concede the point, but after playing
one game I hardly think you are qualified to assess the computer AI. The
SMAC AI isn't perfect, but it's a hell of a lot better than Civ2 or Moo2
where the AI is incapable of providing anything resembling a challenge.
Neil Fradkin
Have you even seen an AI in any game of any genre do this? Personally, I
have not seen an AI even come close.
denn...@telepath.com
Supposedly the AI in Stardock's Entrepreneur is quite capable of doing that.
But the graphs in that game are simple enough that the AI can probably do
exhaustive searches for most things.
T.E.D.